A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Critical Industry Skills Act" proposes amendments to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It allows Governors to reserve up to 10 percent of certain funds to establish a critical industry skills fund or an industry or sector partnership and career pathways development fund. The bill also updates how funds are reallocated among local areas to include performance-based incentive payments. Additionally, it expands the scope of statewide employment and training activities. These changes include requirements for competency-based assessments and new ways to support workers through industry partnerships.
Yes· 3 of 23
- Scored +5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
The bill specifically includes support for youth age 18 through 24 in its skills development programs.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill targets individuals facing economic disruption and those with barriers to employment to improve their earning potential.
- Scored +5
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The bill explicitly prioritizes individuals with disabilities in its industry or sector partnerships.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Training Opportunities: The creation of a critical industry skills fund allows for performance-based payments to entities providing skills development programs in industries and occupations identified by the Governor (Section 2(a)(3)(A)(i)).
-
Support for Career Advancement: The industry or sector partnership and career pathways development fund aims to improve worker training, retention, and advancement (Section 4(5)(A)).
-
Recognition of Skills: The bill encourages the use of competency-based assessments to award recognized postsecondary credentials or postsecondary credit toward a recognized postsecondary credential (Section 4(a)(2)(B)(viii)).
-
Job Placement and Stability: Under the critical industry skills fund, payments to eligible entities are tied to successful program completion and six months of employment with a participating employer (Section 4(a)(4)(D)(i)(II)).
-
Support for Vulnerable Populations: The industry or sector partnership fund prioritizes serving individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals with disabilities, disadvantaged youth, and those facing economic disruption (Section s 4(5)(B)(ii)).
-
Access to Specialized Information: Statewide activities may include training staff to provide information about wage levels, available benefits, and opportunities for individuals with barriers to employment to enter in-demand sectors (Section 4(a)(2)(B)(iv)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Funding Limits for Small Employers: In the critical industry skills fund, the amount of federal funds an entity can receive is capped based on the size of the participating employer; for example, employers with 100 or more employees can only have 50 percent of the costs covered (Section 4(a)(4)(E)(i)).
-
Restrictions on Grant Duration: Grants awarded under the industry or sector partnership and career pathways development fund are limited to a period of not more than 2 years (Section 4(5)(C)).
-
Financial Constraints on Partnerships: An industry or sector partnership may not use more than 10 percent of its grant funds for administrative costs (Section 4(5)(H)(K)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill targets individuals facing economic disruption and those with barriers to employment to improve their earning potential. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill explicitly prioritizes individuals with disabilities in its industry or sector partnerships. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The bill specifically includes support for youth age 18 through 24 in its skills development programs. Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill provides employer-directed skills development and training support to help businesses meet labor demands. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill provides priority consideration for partnerships that include Tribal Colleges and Universities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill prioritizes partnerships that serve individuals in rural areas. Would students be better off under this? — The bill supports postsecondary credit and helps students transition into high-growth career pathways. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill includes provisions to increase expertise in providing opportunities for covered veterans. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires performance reporting disaggregated by race to track outcomes for underserved populations. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires performance reporting disaggregated by race to track outcomes for underserved populations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires performance reporting disaggregated by race to track outcomes for underserved populations. Would men be better off under this? — The bill requires performance reporting disaggregated by sex to ensure equitable outcomes. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill facilitates skills development for workers seeking advancement into higher-wage industries. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill encourages business engagement that includes labor-management partnerships. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires performance reporting disaggregated by race to track outcomes for underserved populations. Would women be better off under this? — The bill requires performance reporting disaggregated by sex to ensure equitable outcomes. Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill supports economic security for older populations through specific agency provisions. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill includes programs that support employment and economic security for populations covered by the Older Americans Act.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill prioritizes serving individuals with barriers to employment, specifically including individuals with disabilities. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By focusing on high-wage industries and career pathways, the bill aims to improve economic mobility for disadvantaged populations.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill funds industry partnerships and critical skills development to help workers enter high-growth and high-wage industries. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill includes provisions for training and technical assistance that involve small and medium-sized employers.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — The bill supports postsecondary credit toward recognized credentials to accelerate attainment of higher education goals.
- 4/2/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.